Prohibition of weapons

With all of the talk of firearms banning lately there have been about as many opinions on weapons as the actual weapons in circulation. I can see good points on both sides of the argument, but unfortunately the theme seems to be one extreme or the other. The media would have us believe that everyone you pass on the street is armed with an AK and is going to shoot you so for fears sake something has to be done!! The NRA wild have you believe tanks are the answer to safety, better stock up on gas.

Now with the drastic failure of both prohibition of alcohol, and the more recent failure of prohibition of drugs, I have no doubt that prohibiting guns would also fail. So rather than beat that dead horse I want to see where you the bullies would draw the line on weapons. What weapons would you ban and why??

My choice personally is pretty much status quo, I think they should just enforce what's on the books now and leave it the **** alone.

For the most part I agree, except I have zero issues with FFL for person to person sale. It's money for nothing for the gun shops and it actually hinders sale to people who are likely to commit crimes.

I think they should un-ban all those bullshit non-firearm weapons like sword canes, ninja stars, switchblades and brass knuckles. Maybe thugs would be less likely to injure faraway innocent bystanders that way, and I'd rather people were running around with that stuff than firearms. Of course, if firearms are still around, the intelligent violenteer would still go that way so the point is moot. Plus awful news stories would at least be a bit more interesting.

But life is not an anime so people won't all agree to take the weapon level down to a medieval brawl.

If we were to ban weapons (any), one of the first questions is how that will be accomplished. Voluntary turnovers? Forcible seizures? Even if you did that, you wouldn't get the ones that aren't registered. But more importantly, the government's authority to do so is backed by THEIR guns, which I assume will not be collected because they'll need them. That right there is why I'm skeptical of weapon laws- they presume that the government knows better than the citizen while acknowledging that weapons are necessary in the modern world.

I caught some flak in another thread for misspeaking, but my position remains the same. If I thought there were any possibility that the people being armed would serve as an adequate check against the government, I'd be firmly against any kind of weapon ban. But I don't think the public are motivated or in good enough shape for that idea to be entertained. So I don't see the need for automatic and "assault" weapons in non combat situations.

However I also think that responsible people should be able to play with whatever toys they want, so I'm still against restriction. Just for different reasons than I'd like to be.

Also, I should be able to carry whatever non-firearm weapons I damn well please (within reason). I think some potential muggings could be averted simply by the guy having to stop and wonder "Is that a cane or is there a fucking sword hidden in there?"

I support a ban or heavy restriction of weapons that are, or their ammunition is, inherently dangerous when stored, i.e. chemical, nuclear and high explosive. Other than that, nothing you can buy at a gun store is nearly as dangerous as a car, even when mis-used.

I think they should un-ban all those bullshit non-firearm weapons like sword canes, ninja stars, switchblades and brass knuckles. Maybe thugs would be less likely to injure faraway innocent bystanders that way, and I'd rather people were running around with that stuff than firearms. Of course, if firearms are still around, the intelligent violenteer would still go that way so the point is moot. Plus awful news stories would at least be a bit more interesting.

But life is not an anime so people won't all agree to take the weapon level down to a medieval brawl.

If we were to ban weapons (any), one of the first questions is how that will be accomplished. Voluntary turnovers? Forcible seizures? Even if you did that, you wouldn't get the ones that aren't registered. But more importantly, the government's authority to do so is backed by THEIR guns, which I assume will not be collected because they'll need them. That right there is why I'm skeptical of weapon laws- they presume that the government knows better than the citizen while acknowledging that weapons are necessary in the modern world.

The ban on MA weapons is the one that really pisses me off to be honest, here in Canada I can't own a balisong but I can walk around with a butchers blade or kitchen knife, all because of some dumb ass fears of ninja deadly weapons masters in the '70s

The ban on MA weapons is the one that really pisses me off to be honest, here in Canada I can't own a balisong but I can walk around with a butchers blade or kitchen knife, all because of some dumb ass fears of ninja deadly weapons masters in the '70s

What about a machete?? Their are alot of places that have restrictions on katanas yet they allow use of machetes. This is the main problem with weapon bans, they are fear based.

A machete is a tool, so anyone who works the land has a reason to own one

A machete is OK because it's a tool. A kukri is not OK because it's a weapon. Either will do equally well at removing body parts, and the amputee will be no happier abut being maimed with a tool or a weapon. All weapon bans are the same, if they are not tied to a performance measure, they are useless.